Talk:Diane Kendal

Untitled
I don't think you reviewed this properly. The copyvio was literally in the very first version of the article (it just got worse overtime, relying on three sources copypasted instead of just one). In such cases (at least according to my knowledge of this site) it is standard to delete the article in its entirety and especially when there isn't any major contributions to keep (further edits to the article added more copyvio). The only part of the article that isn't copyvio was the section about her personal life... and even in that, the first sentence is all that is backed up by the sourcing used (NYT says nothing about her daughter's name). Surely you don't think we should keep an article that just states "Kendal maintains a close personal and working relationship with hair stylist Guido Palau.[2] She and her daughter currently reside in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.[2]"...? As an admin currently choosing to not have admin rights, and a long-time OTRS member, I fully am aware of the RevDel process... but do not find it adequate to solve the problem here. — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Coffee! Yes, you may well be right, I may indeed have missed or overlooked something. I did however spend some time looking at this, and also at Guido Palau. These and a few others were created by an agency called Art + Commerce to promote their clients, so I tried to check the pages against an archived version of that website, but it used Flash at that time so was not accessible (to me, anyway). For all I know the stuff was copied verbatim from there.
 * I do see a substantial overlap between the theimpression.com link you provided and the first revision of this page; but as you can see here, that website was domain-parked at that time. The link you gave has never been archived; it looks as if the copying was the other way round (or am I wrong?). There is definitely some copying from VoguePedia, a Vogue article from 2009; but it was apparently not present in the first version of the page. The apparent copyvio from intermissionmagazine.com is (a) not present in the first revision and (b) caused by a correctly-attributed quotation. Without digging deeper, all I'm seeing of concern is the copying from Vogue, which can perhaps be excised or the page rolled back to before it was added; if you see anything more than that, do please say. When are you going to put that admin hat back on? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha! I missed the fact that theimpression.com wasn't live when the article was first created (good catch!). As to whom copied who, I'm not sure... but it does seem likely it could have been a reverse case. So, yes then all that I think is of issue is the Vogue piece... the intermission mag part only came into play when I thought 90% of the article was a copy-paste. As to your last question, I'm waiting until I'm fully oiled up on things again (18 month breaks do have an impact on working memory lol) before requesting the hat back. Situations like this are good re-learning cases for me. So, thanks for your thorough explanation! — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 23:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)